WPC ({Hxr34&^,3é"i'p3}7xv V氰؂Nߧ $)wkS;>'• !r:t(DK"07hi7EF+MxJmGzlVvdvy1u?>tv$ElUStisaQȍNnȄ *7n;USx>i -<): g-ZԆj~0 D¨Aٴu,q]Ϥ4t`i lmZݿnpc9ei-J[.ΫyJ^J~RZh߽ X!]nyf*DDx/&':mb:V?.Bڲ{ p{TXo ¡+tf+Ύ%eqɖn#VsAG!l_-o 0t#F UN %U 0:[ ^ w 4   m U> N 0! 0N ?  0DWR 0b ( 0 ! 0! 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0e' 0A( 0#) 0* 0* 0+ 0, 0`- 00. 0. 0/ 00 01 0a2 093 04 04 05 0{6 00D7 0<t7 07 0>n8 0v8 0`"9 0`9 0`9 0`B: 0`: 08; 0:; 02 < 0>< 0::= 0Yt= 0_= 0 ,> 0j6? 0@ B*$B D/NB D+}B 0B D/,D 0[D 06)E 0_E 0:gF 0^F 0<FU6;GU*qGGaH_ZZ^ __cf_g Bhi3il)nobs zq<hˎ A3ޒ@ o6SLbEb  ӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔӔHP LaserJet 5/5M PostScript0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,{2 }R1:i+003|x U\  `&Times New Roman(\%2$$ !USUS.,    XX  0    (O$ 5  $$USUS.,  3XX  5     _Section143002oftheCommercialLawArticleprovides:  8  8`   (a)Application.!Thissectiondoesnotapplytoaninteractive  computerserviceprovideroratelecommunicationutilitytothe  extentthattheinteractivecomputerserviceprovideror  telecommunicationutilitymerelyhandles,retransmits,orcarries  atransmissionofcommercialelectronicmail. ` x` x 8  8`   (b)Prohibition.!Apersonmaynotinitiatethetransmission,   conspirewithanotherpersontoinitiatethetransmission,or   assistinthetransmissionofcommercialelectronicmailthat: ` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x(1)IsfromacomputerintheStateorissenttoan   electronicmailaddressthatthesenderknowsor   shouldhaveknownisheldbyaresidentofthe   State;and    8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)(_i_)UsesathirdpartysInternetdomainname   orelectronicmailaddresswithoutthepermission  ofthethirdparty;   8  8`   8 ` x` x8  (ii)Containsfalseormisleading  informationabouttheoriginorthe  transmissionpathofthe  commercialelectronicmail;or 8  8`   8 ` x` x8  (iii)Containsfalseormisleading  informationinthesubjectlinethat  hasthecapacity,tendency,oreffect  ofdeceivingtherecipient. 8  8`   (c)Presumption.!Apersoninpresumedtoknowthatthe  intendedrecipientofcommercialelectronicmailisaresidentof  theStateiftheinformationisavailableonrequestfromthe  registrantoftheInternetdomainnamecontainedinthe   recipientselectronicmailaddress.` x` x 8  8`   (d)Blocking.!Aninteractivecomputerserviceprovider:` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x(1)Mayblockthereceiptortransmissionthrough  itsinteractivecomputerserviceofcommercial  electronicmailthatitreasonablybelievesisor  willbesentinapparentviolationofthissection;   and    8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)Maynotbeheldliableforanactionunder   item(1)ifthissubsectionthatisvoluntarilytaken   ingoodfaith.    Md.Code(2002,2004Cum.Supp.),143002oftheCommercialLawArticle.(#$  0   H  $$USUS.,  3XX  9     _PriortoargumentinthisCourt,onApril18,2005,BSIfiledamotiontosupplement  therecordunderMarylandRule8414,whichRealtimeGamingand_KDMS_Ԁopposedasan  impermissiblemotiontointroduceevidencethatwasnotpresentedbelow.MarylandRule  8414permitstheCourt,uponthemotionofapartyor_sua_Ԁ_sponte_,to orderthatanerroror  omissionintherecordbecorrected.Md.Rule8414.Initsmotion,BSIseekstointroduce  additionalpagesfromtheInternet,whichwerenotpresentedtothecourtbelow,tofurther   bolsteritsallegationsconcerningtherelationshipbetweenRealtimeGaming,_KDMS_,and   _windowscasino.com_.Becausetheevidenceatissuewasnoterroneouslyomittedfromthe   recordtransmittedfromtheCircuitCourt,andBSIdoesnotseektocorrectanyerror   containedintherecord,itsmotiontosupplementisdenied.2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5     2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7D(X7  ?O%2A`Arial?  XXXS \  `&Times New RomanS7E(X7&  d dC)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7G(X7  ?O%2A`Arial?  XXXS \  `&Times New RomanS7E(X7C)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`ArialLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5   $$USUS.,  3XX  11     _Md.Code(1973,2002Repl.Vol.),Section6103oftheCourtsandJudicial  ProceedingsArticleprovides:  8  8`   (a)Condition.!Ifjurisdictionoverapersonisbasedsolely  uponthissection,hemaybesuedonlyonacauseofaction  arisingfromanyactenumeratedinthissection.` x` x 8  8`   (b)Ingeneral.!Acourtmayexercisepersonaljurisdictionover   aperson,whodirectlyorbyanagent: ` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x(1)Transactsanybusinessorperformsany   characterofworkorserviceintheState;    8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)Contractstosupplygoods,food,services,or   manufacturedproductsintheState;    8  8`   8 ` x` x(3)Causes_tortious_ԀinjuryintheStatebyanactor   omissionintheState;    8  8`   8 ` x` x(4)Causes_tortious_ԀinjuryintheStateoroutside   theStatebyanactoromissionoutsidetheStateif  heregularlydoesorsolicitsbusiness,engagesin  anyotherpersistentcourseofconductintheState  orderivessubstantialrevenuefromgoods,food,  services,ormanufacturedproductsusedor  consumedintheState;   8  8`   8 ` x` x(5)Hasaninterestin,uses,orpossessesreal  propertyintheState;or#    #8  8`   8 ` x` x(6)Contractstoinsureoractasasuretyfor,oron,  anyperson,property,risk,contract,obligation,or  agreementlocated,executed,ortobeperformed  withintheStateatthetimethecontractismade,  unlessthepartiesotherwiseprovideinwriting.   8  8`   (c)Applicabilitytocomputerinformationandcomputer   programs.!(1)(_i_)inthissubsectionthefollowingtermshave   themeaningsindicated. ` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x8  (ii) Computerinformationhasthe   meaningstatedin22102ofthe   CommercialLawArticle.  8  8`   8 ` x` x8  (iii) Computerprogramhasthe   meaningstatedin22102ofthe   CommercialLawArticle.  8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)Theprovisionsofthissectionapplyto  computerinformationandcomputerprogramsin  thesamemannerastheyapplytogoodsand  services.   MarylandCode(2002,2004Cum.Supp.),Section22102(10)oftheCommercialLaw  Articleprovides:  8  8`    Computerinformationmeansinformationinelectronicform  whichisobtainedfromorthroughtheuseofacomputeror  whichisinaformcapableofbeingprocessesbyacomputer.  Thetermincludesacopyoftheinformationandany  documentationorpackagingassociatedwiththecopy.` x` x MarylandCode(2002,2004Cum.Supp.),Section22102(12)oftheCommercialLaw  Articleprovides:   8  8`    Computerprogrammeansasetofstatementsorinstructions ! tobeuseddirectlyorindirectlyinacomputertobringabouta " certainresult.Thetermdoesnotincludeseparatelyidentifiable # informationalcontent.   $$USUS.,  3XX  13     _Priorto_Intl_ԀShoe,theSupremeCourtsopinionin_Pennoyer_Ԁv._Neff_,95U.S.714,24  _L.Ed_.565(1877),providedthatdueprocessrequiredserviceofprocessonanindividual  defendantwhilepresentwithinthestateforavalidpersonaljudgment.Acorporationonly  existedwithinthebordersofthestateofitsincorporation,seeBankofAugustav._Earle_,38  U.S.519,10_L.Ed_.274(1839),andstateshadnojurisdictionoverforeigncorporations.  BernardAuerbach,The LongArmComestoMaryland,26Md.L.Rev.13,14(1966).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5   $$USUS.,  3XX  3     _ DomainnamesserveasaprimaryidentifierofanInternetuser._Zippo_  ManufacturingCo.v._Zippo_ԀDotComInc.,952_F.Supp_.1119,1121n.1(_W.D.Pa_.1997),  citing_Panavision_ԀIntern.,L.P.v._Toeppen_,938_F.Supp_.616(C.D.Cal.1996). Businesses  usingtheInternetcommonlyusetheirbusinessnamesaspartofthedomainname(e.g.  _IBM.com_).Id. Thedesignation.comidentifiestheuserasacommercialentity.Id.   $$USUS.,  3XX  17     _BSIalsoassertsthatRealtimeGamingand_KDMS_Ԁreceivesubstantialrevenuefrom  citizensinMarylandthroughonlinecasinoswhichusetheirsoftwarewithoutanysupport.  Visitorsto_windowscasino.com_,forexample,downloadthesoftwaredesignedby_KDMS_Ԁfor  free.BSIhasfailedtoshowanyconnectionbetweenRealtimeGamingand_KDMS_Ԁand  _windowscasino.com_.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5   $$USUS.,  3XX  16     _In_Zippo_,theplaintiffhadconcededthatonlyspecificjurisdictionwasatissue._Zippo_,  952_F.Supp_.at1122. dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 )  $$USUS.,  3XX  2     _Proprietarysoftwareis [_s]oftware_Ԁthatcannotbeused,redistributed,ormodified  withoutpermission.Proprietarysoftwareisusuallysoldforprofit,consistsonlyofmachine  readablecode,andcarriesalimitedlicensethatrestrictscopying,modification,and  redistribution.Ausermayusuallymakeabackupcopyforpersonaluse;butifthesoftware  issoldorgivenaway,anybackupcopiesmustbepassedontothenewuserordestroyed.  BlacksLawDictionary, proprietarysoftware(8thed.2004).   $$USUS.,  3XX  1     _Interactiveisdefinedas atwowayelectroniccommunicationsystem...that  involvesausersorders...orresponses._Merriam_ԄWebsterDictionary, interactive(10th  ed.2002).   $$USUS.,  3XX  4     _OmegaOneMedia,Inc.isnotrelatedtoanyoftheentitiesnamedinthepresentaction  andisnotnamedinthislawsuit.   $$USUS.,  3XX  6     _Inhisaffidavit,WagnerassertsthatasignificantrelationshipexistsamongRealtime  Gamingand_KDMS_Ԁand affiliatesinwhich theprincipalmerchants(andalteregos)...  employaffiliatesto_spamvertise_Ԁtheirproducts,andthetwocompanies pay[]affiliatesto  advertise_KDMS_sproprietarysoftwaretopotentialplayers.Throughouthisaffidavit,  Wagnercharacterizes,withoutsupport,_windowscasino.com_ԀandRealtimeGamingand  _KDMS_Ԁasinterchangeableentities.   $$USUS.,  3XX  8     _BecauseBSIfileditsMotionforReconsiderationunderRule2534,whichgoverns  motionstoalteroramendjudgment,withinthetendayperiodspecifiedintheRules,the  judgmentdismissingthecomplaintlostitsfinalityforappealpurposes.See_Popham_Ԁv.State  FarmMut.Ins.Co.,333Md.136,143,634A.2d28,3132(1994);Unnamed_Atty_Ԁv.  AttorneyGrievance_Commn_,303Md.473,486,494A.2d940,946(1985).    Rule8202,governingthepropertimeforfilingnoticeofappeal,providesinpertinent   part:   8  8`   Inacivilaction,whenatimelymotionisfiledpursuanttoRule   ...2534,thenoticeofappealshallbefiledwithin30daysafter   entryof(1)anoticewithdrawingthemotionor(2)anorder   denyingamotionpursuanttoRule2533ordisposingofa   motionpursuanttoRule2532or2534. ` x` x Inthepresentcase,thecourtdeniedthemotionforreconsiderationonSeptember21,2004   andBSIfileditsnoticeofappealtotheCourtofSpecialAppealsonOctober20,2004,  withinthe30dayperiodsetforthinRule8202.Therefore,wehavejurisdictiontohearthe  appeal.  $$USUS.,  3XX  12     _AstheWashingtonSupremeCourtnotedinStatev._Hecker_,24P.3d404,406n.1  (Wash.2001):  8  8`   Thetermspamrefersbroadlytounsolicitedbulkemail(or  junkemail),whichcanbeeithercommercial(suchasan  advertisement)ornoncommercial(suchasajokeorchain  letter).SabraAnne_Kelin_,StateRegulationofUnsolicited   CommercialEMail,16BerkeleyTech._L.J._Ԁ435,436&n.10   (2001).Useoftheterm spamasInternetjargonforthis   seeminglyubiquitousjunkemailaroseoutofaskitbythe   BritishcomedytroupeMontyPython,inwhichawaitresscan   offerapatronnosinglemenuitemthatdoesnotincludespam:   Well,there'sspam,egg,sausageandspam.That'snotgotmuch   spaminit.2GrahamChapmanetal.,TheCompleteMonty   Python'sFlyingCircus:AlltheWords27(PantheonBooks   1989)._Hormel_ԀFoodsCorporation,whichdebuteditsSPAM  luncheonmeatin1937,hasdroppedanydefensivenessabout  thisuseofthetermandnowcelebratesitsproductwitha  website(www.spam.com).See_Hormel_ԀObjectsto_Cyber_  PromotionsUseofSPAMMark,4No.1Andrews_Intell_.  Prop._Litig_.Rep.19(1997);LaurieJ.Flynn,Gracious  ConcessiononInternetSpam,N.Y.Times,Aug.17,1998,at   D3.BecausethetermhasbeenwidelyadoptedbyInternet  users,legislators,andlegalcommentators,weusetheterm  herein,alongwithitsusefulderivatives_spammer_and  spamming.   $$USUS.,  3XX  15     _ Protocolis asetofconventionsgoverningthetreatmentandespeciallythe  formattingofdatainanelectroniccommunicationssystem._Merriam_ԄWebsterDictionary,   protocol(10thed.2002).   $$USUS.,  3XX  7     _Becausetheoralstatementofdismissalcontemplatedthewrittenorder,whichwas  laterissuedbythetrialcourt,itisthedateoftheissuanceofthewrittenorderthatconstitutes  thedateofthefinalappealablejudgment.See_Walbert_Ԁv._Walbert_,310Md.657,661,531  A.2d291,293(1987).TheCircuitCourtfailedtodismiss JohnDoefromthesuit.  Because JohnDoe,althoughnamedasadefendantinthecomplaint,wasneverservedwith  processandwasneveridentifiedasarealperson, JohnDoeisnotapartytotheactionand   theCircuitCourtsfailuretodismisshimfromthesuitdoesnotpreventthejudgmentfrom   beingfinal.See,e.g.,Jonesv.MidAtlanticFundingCo.,362Md.661,665n.2,766A.2d   617,618n.2(2001)(notingthatdefendantnamedinthecomplaintwasnotapartytothe   actionbecausehewasneverserved);Md.Bd.ofNursingv._Nechay_,347Md.396,406,701   A.2d405,410(1997)(statingthatthecourtlacksjurisdictionoveranameddefendantif    processhasnotbeenserved);_Claibourne_Ԁv.Willis,347Md.684,68687,702A.2d293,   297(1997)(same).Subsequently,BSIfiledamotioninCircuitCourttodismiss JohnDoe   fromthecase.AlthoughwedonotknowwhethertheCircuitCourtdismissed JohnDoe,   becausehewasneverserved,isnotaparty,anddoesnotrepresentarealperson,wedonot  addressanyfilingsmadeafterthewritofcertiorariwasissued. 2  $$USUS.,  3XX  14     _TheinformationconcerningthestructureoftheInternetthatfollowsistakenfrom  HowDoestheInternetWork?unlessotherwisecited. ^  $$USUS.,  3XX  10     _Thiscontrastswiththeeffectofthetrialcourtsconsiderationofmattersoutsidethe  pleadingsonamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegranted  underMarylandRule2322(b).Rule2322providesthatifthetrialcourtgrantsamotion  todismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegrantedafterconsidering  evidenceoutsidethefourcornersofthecomplaint,weviewthemotionashavingconverted  intooneofsummaryjudgmentforreviewpurposes.SeeGreenv.H&RBlock,Inc.,355   Md.488,501,735A.2d1039,1047(1999).fE&Draw Object =8C HKKKKLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5h WPC4u513%)+-V$$   I  #"Xd# k - - H         e !USUS.,  _3XX  o>iOYpP 8XXdd8  @.INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOF  @7MARYLAND  @8No.119     SeptemberTerm2004   __________________________________   BEYONDSYSTEMS,INC.  V.  REALTIMEGAMINGHOLDING  COMPANY,LLC,ETAL.  __________________________________    *X2XX*   2 Bell,C.J.     2 Raker     2 Wilner     2 Cathell     2 Harrell      2 Battaglia !    2 Greene, " . XX2X. % 0 } JJ. 33$ }(#}(# (#(#K(#@/OpinionbyBattaglia,J. '##   Bell,C.J.,RakerandHarrell,JJ.,dissent ($$ egvr$j~0&upR@@@5,$$ d `4E+uu~U+   ̀Filed:#3 3#ԀJune22,2005#XX3=# ,((  -)) o> o    o  3XX  ThiscasearisesoutofacivilsuitpremiseduponSection143002oftheCommercial  LawArticleoftheMarylandCode,whichprohibitsconspiringtodisseminateunauthorized,  false,ormisleadinginformationviaelectronicmail( email).Becausewedeterminethat  Petitioner,BeyondSystems,Inc.( BSI),didnotestablishaprimafaciecasethat   Respondents,KDMSInternational,LLC( KDMS)andRealtimeGamingHolding   Company,LLC( RealtimeGaming),possesstherequisiteminimumcontactsamounting   topurposefullyavailingthemselvesofthebenefitsofconductingbusinessinMaryland,we   agreewiththeCircuitCourtsrulingthatthecourtlackedpersonaljurisdictionover  Respondents.Moreover,weconcludethattheCircuitCourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionby  denyingPetitionerdiscoveryonthepersonaljurisdictionissueandstrikingtheamended  complaint.    Background       KDMS,abusinessthatdevelopsinteractive\ #  1      ׀proprietarysoftware[ #  2      ׀usedintheonline  gamingindustry,isalimitedliabilitycompany( LLC)formedunderthelawsoftheState  ofDelaware,withitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinAtlanta,Georgia.RealtimeGaming,the       holdingcompanyforKDMS,isalimitedliabilitycompanyformedunderthelawsofthe  StateofGeorgiawithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinAtlanta,Georgia.Thetwobusinesses  sharethesamePresidentandChiefExecutiveOfficer,MichaelStaw.    AspartofRealtimeGamingssalesandmarketingstrategyfortheKDMSsoftware,   RealtimeGamingenteredintoanexclusivelicensingagreementwithMontanaOverseas,a   Panamaniancorporation,bywhichMontanaOverseaswouldberesponsibleforissuing   licensesfortheuseofKDMSssoftware.ThroughthelicensingprocesswithMontana   Overseas,windowscasino.com,whichisownedbyADLMLtd.basedinSt.Helier,Jersey,  UnitedKingdom,obtainedtherighttousetheKDMSsoftwareinitsonlinecasino.  Windowscasino.comisaninteractiveonlinecasinothatpromotesonlythegamesdesigned  byKDMS.    InMarchof2003,TravisThom,aresidentofAlbuquerque,NewMexico,foundan  advertisementontheInternetfor www.windowscasino.com.Theadvertisementexplained  howindividualscouldbecome affiliatesofwindowscasino.comforasmallinvestmentand  makemoneybyreferringplayerstowindowscasino.comswebsite.Duringthefirsttwo   weeksofMarch,Thomcontactedwindowscasino.combytelephoneandspoketoasales " associateforwindowscasino.comaboutbecomingan affiliate.Theemployeedescribed $  therelationshipwithwindowscasino.comandinformedThomthathewouldhavetopurchase &"" a CasinoToGoPrivateLabelPackagefor$999.00plusapplicabletaxes. ($$   AroundMarch14,2003,Thomvisitedthewww.windowscasino.comwebsiteand *&& completedan affiliateapplicationtomakethepurchase,whichwasconfirmedthenextday  byawindowscasino.comemployeethroughemail.Uponreceiptofthe CasinoToGo  PrivateLabelPackage,Thomcreatedanameforhisaffiliatewebpage,  www.goldenrhinocasino.com,whichheregisteredinhisownnamewithYahoo!Domains,U #  3         aservicethatregistersnamesofwebsites.Windowscasino.comthendesignedThoms   webpage,withhisinputregardingtheaesthetics,butnotthecontentorfunction.Thoms   webpagedirectedplayerstothewindowscasino.comwebsitewheregamblersdownloaded   thesoftwaredesignedbyKDMS,whichwasretrievedfromanIPaddress(InternetProtocol  address)registeredtoKDMS.Inreturnfordirectingindividualstowindowscasino.com,  Thomwouldbecompensatedwith45%ofreferredplayerslossesanduptoa$40.00   bountyperplayerwhodepositedfundstogambleatwindowscasino.com.    OnApril14,2003,Thomcontractedwithabulkemailsolicitationservice,Omega  OneMedia,Inc.,tosend2.5millionunsolicitedemailadvertisements.] #  4      ׀Hepaid  windowscasino.comanadditionalfeetowriteanddesigntheemails.OnApril26,2003,  sixteenemailaddressesusedbyemployeesofBSIeachreceivedfifteensuchunsolicited   commercialemailsoveratwentyfourhourperiod,foratotalof240emails,advertising " theGoldenRhinoCasino.    OnDecember31,2003,BSIfiledacomplaintagainstRealtimeGaming,KDMS,and  anunknowncodefendantintheCircuitCourtforMontgomeryCountyandallegedviolations  ofMarylandCode(2002,2004Cum.Supp.),Section143002oftheCommercialLaw   Article. #  5      ׀OnApril16,2004,RealtimeGamingandKDMSfiledamotiontodismissthe   complaintforlackofpersonaljurisdiction,orinthealternativeamotionforsummary  judgment.Insupportoftheirmotion,RealtimeGamingandKDMSattachedanaffidavit  fromtheirmutualPresidentandCEO,MichaelStaw( Staw)whoassertedthatRealtime  GamingfunctionssolelyasaholdingcompanyforKDMSanddoesnotengageinanyother   businessactivities,andthatKDMShasconductednobusinessinMaryland.BSIfileda   memoranduminoppositiontoRealtimeGamingandKDMSsmotionandattacheda   supportingaffidavitfromBSIsowner,PaulWagner( Wagner),inwhichheassertsvarious   conclusorystatementsconcerningtheexistenceofanagencyrelationshipbetweenRealtime  Gaming,KDMS,andwindowscasino.com.^  #  6      ׀OnMay21,2004,RealtimeGamingandKDMS  filedareplymemorandum,attemptingtorefuteBSIsallegations.    OnMay26,2004,theCircuitCourtheldahearingand,atthehearingsclose,stated  itsintentiontodismissthecomplaintforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.OnJune2,2004,the  courtissuedawrittenorderthatdismissedBSIscomplaintforlackofpersonaljurisdiction  overRealtimeGamingandKDMSanddidnotspecifythatBSIwouldhaveleavetoamend   thecomplaint.b #  7      ׀OnJune11,2004,BSIfiledamotionforreconsiderationwithanamended   complaintattached.Intheamendedcomplaint,BSImadespecificallegationsregardingthe   connectionbetweenRealtimeGaming,KDMS,windowscasino.com,andThomthrougha   serverandIPaddressregisteredtoKDMS.Italsoallegedasignificantrelationshipamong  RealtimeGaming,KDMS,andanetworkofsublicensees,oneofwhichassistedinthe  transmissionoftheemailsatissue.Moreover,itnamedTravisThomasanadditional  defendantwhocausedtheemailsinquestiontobesent.    RealtimeGamingandKDMS,inturn,filedamotionopposingBSIsmotionfor  reconsiderationandseekingtohavetheamendedcomplaintstricken.Insodoing,Realtime  GamingandKDMSassertedthatBSIofferednonewfactsthatwouldestablishpersonal  jurisdictionoverthem.OnSeptember21,2004,theCircuitCourtdeniedBSIsmotionfor   reconsiderationandgrantedthemotiontostriketheamendedcomplaint.     OnOctober20,2004,BSIfileditsnoticeofappeal._ #  8      ׀Priortoanyproceedingsinthe   CourtofSpecialAppeals,BSI,onNovember22,2004,filedapetitionforwritofcertiorari   containingthefollowingquestions:  8  8`   1.DidthetrialcourterrindismissingPetitionersclaims  againstRespondentsundertheMarylandantispamstatute,14  3001etseq.oftheCommercialLawArticleoftheAnnotated  CodeofMaryland,forinitiating,conspiringtoinitiate,or  assistinginthetransmissionof240emailsadvertising  Respondentsbusiness,forlackofpersonaljurisdiction?` x` x 8  8`   2.DidthetrialcourterrindenyingPetitionersrequesttotake  discoveryastothenatureandextentofRespondentscontacts  withMarylandforpurposesofpersonaljurisdictionunderthe  factsdescribedabove? ` x` x 8  8`   3.Didthetrialcourterrinstrikingtheamendedcomplaint   containingdetailedallegationsoffact,includingfactsrelevant   totheissueofpersonaljurisdiction? ` x` x OnDecember17,2004,wegrantedthepetitionandissuedthewrit.BeyondSystems,Inc.   v.RealtimeGamingHoldingCompany,LLC,384Md.448,863A.2d997(2004). #  9      ׀Because   weconcurwiththetrialcourtsdeterminationthatBSIhasfailedtomakeaprimafacie  showingofpersonaljurisdictionbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,weholdthattheCircuit  Courtproperlydeterminedthattheactioncouldnotproceedtotrial.Moreover,wedetermine  thattheCircuitCourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingBSIsrequestfordiscovery.    StandardofReview       ThetrialcourtdismissedBSIscomplaintforlackofpersonaljurisdictionover  RealtimeGamingandKDMSunderMarylandRule2322(a)and(c),whichstatein  pertinentpart:  8  8`   (a) Mandatory. Thefollowingdefensesshallbemadeby  motiontodismissfiledbeforetheanswer,ifanansweris  required:(1)lackofjurisdictionovertheperson,(2)improper  venue,(3)insufficiencyofprocess,and(4)insufficiencyof   serviceofprocess.Ifnotsomadeandtheanswerisfiled,these   defensesarewaived. ` x` x   ***     8  8`   (c) Disposition. If,onamotiontodismissforfailureofthe    pleadingtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,   mattersoutsidethepleadingarepresentedtoandnotexcluded   bythecourt,themotionshallbetreatedasoneforsummary   judgmentanddisposedofasprovidedinRule2501,andall   partiesshallbegivenreasonableopportunitytopresentall  materialmadepertinenttosuchamotionbyRule2501.` x` x Md.Rule2322(a)and(c).  66  AsJudgePaulV.NiemeyernotesinhisMarylandRulesCommentary,ThirdEdition,  allofthedefenseslistedinMarylandRule2322(a)arecollateraltothemeritsandraise  questionsoflaw.JudgePaulV.NiemeyerandLindaShuett,MarylandRules  Commentary,ThirdEdition205(2003).Iffactsarenecessaryindecidingthemotion,the  courtmayconsideraffidavitsorotherevidenceadducedduringanevidentiaryhearing.Id.d #  10           Discussion  ! =  BSIarguesthatithasmadeaprimafacieshowingofminimumcontactswith  Marylandthatissufficienttodefeatamotiontodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.To  thatend,BSInotesthatitreceived240emailsfromanindividualpromoting  goldenrhinocasino.com,awebsitethatcontainedlinkstodownloadKDMSssoftwarefrom   anIPaddressassignedtoKDMS,whichcorrespondstoaserverownedbyKDMSand   RealtimeGaming.BSInotesthatthesameIPaddressandserverarealsopromotedonthe   windowscasino.comwebsite,whichpoweredthegoldenrhinocasino.comwebpage.From   theseallegations,andwindowscasino.comsinvolvementinthedesignofthe  goldenrhinocasino.comwebsiteandtheemails,BSIconcludesthatRealtimeGamingand  KDMSaredirectlyinvolvedinrunningwindowscasino.com,andtherefore,wereinvolved  inthetransmissionoftheemailsinquestion.Thus,BSIassertsthatithassatisfiedthe  primafacieshowingrequiredfortheCircuitCourttoproperlyexercisepersonaljurisdiction  overRealtimeGamingandKDMSpursuanttoCombv.Bakker,886F.2d673,676(4thCir.  1989).    BSIfurtherarguesthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionbydenyingitdiscovery   concerningpersonaljurisdiction.AccordingtoBSI,thejurisdictionalissueisinextricably " intertwinedwiththemeritsofthecase,andtherefore,thecourtshouldhavepermittedthe $  actiontoproceedwithdiscovery.BSIstatesthattodootherwiseisinequitable. &""   Finally,BSIassertsthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninstrikingtheamended ($$ complaintbecausethefactsallegedthereinandsupportingmaterialsshowedthatRealtime *&& GamingandKDMShadsufficientcontactswithMarylandtosupportpersonaljurisdiction.  BSIcontendsthatpermittingtheamendedcomplainttostandwouldnothaveprejudiced  RealtimeGamingorKDMS,andthatthecourtignoredtheprinciplethatleavetoamend  generallyshouldbegranted.     Conversely,RealtimeGamingandKDMSarguethatBSIhasnotdemonstrateda   primafaciecaseofspecificpersonaljurisdictionorgeneralpersonaljurisdiction.Realtime   GamingandKDMSassertthatBSIhasnotpointedtoanyevidenceshowinganagencyor   subsidiaryrelationshipbetweenthemandwindowscasino.comorTravisThom,theindividual  whoarrangedfortheemailstobesent.Moreover,RealtimeGamingandKDMScontend  thatneithercompanyhasanycontactswiththeStateofMaryland,i.e.,arenotincorporated  inMaryland,donotconductbusinessinMaryland,andwerenotinvolvedinthetransmission  oftheemailsatissue,andassuch,arenotsubjecttospecificorgeneralpersonal  jurisdiction.    RealtimeGamingandKDMSalsoarguethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion  whenitdeniedBSIsrequestfordiscovery.TheyassertthatBSIprovidednobasisupon   whichtograntdiscoverybeyondconclusoryallegationsandbaldfacedassertionsof " jurisdiction.Ultimately,RealtimeGamingandKDMScharacterizeBSIsdesirefor $  discoveryasafishingexpedition. &""   Finally,inresponsetoBSIsargumentsconcerningthestrikingoftheamended ($$ complaint,RealtimeGamingandKDMScontendthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseits *&& discretionwhenitdeniedBSIsrequestforleavetoamend.Theyarguethatthetrialjudge  properlyexercisedhisdiscretionbecausetheamendedcomplaintwasbasedonfactsthat  werealreadybeforethecourt,andtherefore,couldnotcurethefataldefectsinBSIsaction.    ConditionsforPersonalJurisdiction        Whetheracourtmayexertpersonaljurisdictionoveraforeigndefendantentailsdual   considerations.First,weconsiderwhethertheexerciseofjurisdictionisauthorizedunder   Marylandslongarmstatute,Md.Code(1973,2002Repl.Vol.),6103oftheCourtsand   JudicialProceedingsArticle.Q #  11      SeeLamprechtv.PiperAircraftCorp.,262Md.126,130,   277A.2d272,275(1971);CarefirstofMaryland,Inc.v.CarefirstPregnancyCenters,Inc.,  334F.3d390,396(4thCir.2003);ChristianSci.Bd.ofDirs.oftheFirstChurchofChrist  v.Nolan,259F.3d209,215(4thCir.2001).Oursecondtaskistodeterminewhetherthe  exerciseofjurisdictioncomportswithdueprocessrequirementsoftheFourteenth  Amendment.Lamprecht,262Md.at130,277A.2dat275;Carefirst,334F.3dat396;  ChristianSci.Bd.ofDirs.,259F.3dat215.Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatthepurviewof   thelongarmstatuteiscoextensivewiththelimitsofpersonaljurisdictionsetbythedue   processclauseoftheFederalConstitution.Seee.g.,Mohamedv.Michael,279Md.653,657,   370A.2d551,553(1977);Geelhoedv.Jensen,277Md.220,224,352A.2d818,821(1976);   Lamprecht,262Md.at130,277A.2dat275.    BSIallegesthattheemailsatissueinthepresentcaseviolatetheMaryland  CommercialElectronicMailAct( MCEMA),Md.Code(2002,2004Cum.Supp.),14  3001to143003oftheCommercialLawArticle,whichprovidesforaprivatecauseofaction  toseekredressfortortiousinjuryarisingfromthereceiptofmisleadingorfraudulent,  unsolicited,commercialemail.Section143002providesinpertinentpart:  8  8`   (b)Prohibition.!Apersonmaynotinitiatethetransmission,  conspirewithanotherpersontoinitiatethetransmission,or  assistinthetransmissionofcommercialelectronicmailthat: ` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x(1)IsfromacomputerintheStateorissenttoan ! electronicmailaddressthatthesenderknowsor " shouldhaveknownisheldbyaresidentofthe # State;and$    8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)(i)UsesathirdpartsInternetdomainnameor %!! electronicmailaddresswithoutthepermissionof &"" thethirdparty;'##   8  8`   8 ` x` x8  (ii)Containsfalseormisleading ($$ informationabouttheoriginorthe )%% transmissionpathofthe *&& commercialelectronicmail;_or+'' 8  8`   8 ` x` x8  (iii)Containsfalseormisleading  informationinthesubjectlinethat  hasthecapacity,tendency,oreffect  ofdeceivingtherecipient. Md.Code(2002,2004CumSupp.),143002iftheCommercialLawArticle.Thisstatute   wasenactedin2002bytheGeneralAssemblyinanefforttocurbthedisseminationoffalse   ormisleadinginformationthroughunsolicited,commercialemail,asadeceptivebusiness   practice.EconomicMattersCommittee,Fl.Rpt.,HB915,at2.Atthetimeofthestatutes   enactment,twentyoneotherstateshadalreadyenactedsomeformofstatutoryschemeto   addresstheproliferationof spam._` #  12      _ԀSeeSpamLaws:Summary,BillFile,HB915.Thus,  BSIassertsthattheemailsandtheircontentprovidethebasisforthetrialcourttoassert  personaljurisdictionthroughthelongarmstatute.    TheMarylandlongarmstatute,Md.Code(1973,2002Repl.Supp.),Section6103  oftheCourtsandJudicialProceedingsArticle,wasfirstenactedin1964inresponsetothe   SupremeCourtsdecisionin_Intl_ԀShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310,66_S.Ct_.154,90   _L.Ed_.95(1945)._R #  13      _ԀThisstatute,codifiedasMarylandCode(1957,1964Cum.Supp.),Article   75Section96,provided:   8  8`   (a)Acourtmayexercisepersonaljurisdictionoverapersonwho  actsdirectlyorbyanagent,astoacauseofactionarisingfrom  thepersons` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x(1)transactinganybusinessinthisState;   8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)contractingtosupplyservicesinthisState;   8  8`   8 ` x` x(3)causing_tortious_ԀinjuryinthisStatebyanact  oromissioninthisState;   8  8`   8 ` x` x(4)causing_tortious_ԀinjuryinthisStatebyanact  oromissionoutsidetheStateifheregularlydoes  orsolicitsbusiness,engagesinanyother  persistentcourseofconductinthisStateor  derivessubstantialrevenuefromfoodorservices  usedorconsumedinthisState;   8  8`   8 ` x` x(5)havinganinterestin,using,orpossessingreal  propertyinthisState;[or]   8  8`   8 ` x` x(6)contractingtoinsureanyperson,property,or  risklocatedwithinthisStateatthetimeof  contracting;   8  8`   (b)Whenjurisdictionoverapersonisbasedsolelyonthis   section. ` x` x In1965,theSectionwasamendedtoaddlanguagetosubsection(b)thathadbeenomitted   inadvertently,see1965Md.Laws,Chap.749,sothatsubsection(b)read:   8  8`   (b)Whenjurisdictionoverapersonisbasedsolelyuponthis   section,onlyacauseofactionarisingfromactsenumeratedin   thissectionmaybeassertedagainsthim.` x` x Md.Code(1957,1965Cum.Supp.),Art7596(b).In1968,subsection(a)(6)was  amendedtostate:  8  8`   (a)(6)contractingtoinsureoractasasuretyfor,oron,any  person,property,orrisk,contract,obligation,oragreement  located,executedortobeperformedwithinthisStateatthetime  ofcontracting,unlessthepartiesotherwiseprovideinwriting.` x` x Md.Code(1957,1968Repl.Vol.),Art.7596(a)(6).Aspartofthe_recodification_Ԁeffort,  in1973,theGeneralAssemblyrevisedthisSectionandrenumbereditasSection6103of  theCourtsandJudicialProceedingsArticle: ! 8  8`   (a)Condition.Ifjurisdictionoverapersonisbasedsolelyupon # thissection,hemayonlybesuedonacauseofactionarising $  fromanyactenumeratedinthissection.%!!` x` x 8  8`   (b)Ingeneral.Acourtmayexercisepersonaljurisdictionover &"" aperson,whodirectlyorbyanagent:'##` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x(1)transactsanybusinessorperformsany ($$ characterofworkorservicesinthisState;)%%   8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)contractstosupplygoods,food,services,or *&& manufacturedproductsintheState;+''   8  8`   8 ` x` x(3)causing_tortious_ԀinjuryinthisStatebyanact  oromissioninthisState;   8  8`   8 ` x` x(4)causes_tortious_ԀinjuryintheStateoroutsideof  theStatebyanactoromissionoutsidetheStateif  heregularlydoesorsolicitsbusiness,engagesin  anyotherpersistentcourseofconductintheState   orderivessubstantialrevenuefromgoods,food,   services,ormanufacturedproductsusedor   consumedintheState;    8  8`   8 ` x` x(5)hasaninterestin,uses,orpossessesreal   propertyintheState;or    8  8`   8 ` x` x(6)Contractstoinsureoractasasuretyfor,oron,   anyperson,property,risk,contract.obligation,or   agreementlocated,executed,ortobeperformed   withintheStateatthetimethecontractismade,  unlessthepartiesotherwiseprovideinwriting.   Md.Code(1973),6103oftheCourtsandJudicialProceedingsArticle.Accordingtothe  commentarypublishedwiththestatute,thelongarmstatutewasintendedtogiveMaryland  courtsjurisdictiontothefullextentpermittedbytheFederalConstitution.1973Md.Laws,  1stSp.Sess.,Chap.21.    In2000,theGeneralAssemblyamendedthelongarmstatuteforthefinaltimewith  theMarylandUniformComputerInformationTransactionsActandaddedcurrentsubsection  (c)toexpandthecourtsjurisdictionover computerinformationand computerprograms. ! 2000Md.Laws,Chap.11( specifyingthatprovisionsoflawgrantingjurisdictionovera # personinacauseofactionincludecertaincomputerinformationandcomputerinformation %!! transactions).Currentsubsection(c)ofthelongarmstatuteprovides: '## 8  8`   (c)Applicabilitytocomputerinformationandcomputer )%% programs.!(1)(_i_)Inthissubsectionthefollowingtermshave *&& themeaningsindicated.+''` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x8  (ii) Computerinformationhasthe  meaningstatedin22102ofthe  CommercialLawArticle. 8  8`   8 ` x` x8  (iii) Computerprogramhasthe  meaningstatedin22102ofthe  CommercialLawArticle.  8  8`   8 ` x` x(2)Theprovisionsofthissectionapplyto   computerinformationandcomputerprogramsin   thesamemannerastheyapplytogoodsand   services.    Md.Code(1973,2002Repl.Vol.),6103(c)oftheCourtsandJudicialProceedings   Article. Computerinformationand computerprogramaredefinedasfollowsunderthe   MarylandCode:  8  8`   (10) Computerinformationmeansinformationinelectronic  formwhichisobtainedfromorthroughtheuseofacomputeror  whichisinaformcapableofbeingprocessedbyacomputer.  Thetermincludesacopyoftheinformationandany  documentationorpackagingassociatedwiththecopy.` x` x   ***    8  8`   (12) Computerprogrammeansasetofstatementsor  instructionstobeuseddirectlyorindirectlyinacomputerto  bringaboutacertainresult.Thetermdoesnotinclude  separatelyidentifiableinformationalcontent.` x` x Md.Code(2004Cum.Supp.),22102(10)and(12)oftheCommercialLawArticle.       Althoughemailsbroughtthepresentcasetocourt,thegravamenofthepersonal " jurisdictionissueforthepurposesofthelongarmstatuteariseoutofadvertisementsfor $  licensedproprietarysoftwareforuseoncomputers,whichrequiretheusertodownloadthe &"" programfromaremotesource.Thesoftwareatissue consistsonlyofmachinereadable ($$ codetoexecuteacertainactionontheuserscomputer.BlacksLawDictionary, *&&  proprietarysoftware(8thed.2004).Thus,conductingbusinessinMarylandthatinvolves  supplyingcomputerprogramsorinformationtoMarylandresidentswillbetreatedinthe  samemannerasiftheprogramsandinformationweretangiblegoodsorservicesprovided  byabusiness.Advertisingthesoftwareatissuemayformthebasisofpersonaljurisdiction   undertheMarylandlongarmstatutebaseduponthedefinitionof computerprogram.   Beforeweexploretheissueofwhethertheminimumcontactstesthasbeenmet,however,   adiscussionofthecharacteristicsoftheInternetiswarranted.      TheInternet  Ō  InRenov.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,521U.S.844,117_S.Ct_.2329,138_L.Ed_.2d  874(1997),theSupremeCourtprovideditsexplanationoftheInternetas:  8  8`   aninternationalnetworkofinterconnectedcomputers.Itisthe  outgrowthofwhatbeganin1969asamilitaryprogramcalled   ARPANET,[anacronymforthenetworkdevelopedbythe  AdvancedResearchProjectAgency]whichwasdesignedto  enablecomputersoperatedbythemilitary,defensecontractors,  anduniversitiesconductingdefenserelatedresearchto  communicatewithoneanotherbyredundantchannelsevenif  someportionsofthenetworkweredamagedinawar.` x` x 8  8`    WhiletheARPANETnolongerexists,itprovidedan   exampleforthedevelopmentofanumberofciviliannetworks ! that,eventuallylinkingwitheachother,nowenabletensof " millionsofpeopletocommunicatewithoneanotherandto # accessvastamountsofinformationfromaroundtheworld.$ ` x` x Id.at84950,117_S.Ct_.at2334,138_L.Ed_.2dat884. &!"   BecausetheInternetisaglobalnetworkofcomputers, eachcomputerconnectedto (#$ theInternetmusthaveauniqueaddress,Rus_Shuler_,HowDoestheInternetWork? *%& (_Whitepaper_Ԁ2002),c #  14      ׀knownasanInternetProtocolAddress,which canbeusedtoidentify  thesourceoftheconnectiontotheInternet.UnitedStatesv.Bach,400F.3d622,625n.4  (8thCir.2005).    WhenconnectedtotheInternet,computerscommunicatewitheachotherthroughthe   useofa protocol[_a #  15     _]stack,whichisusuallythe TCP/IPprotocolstack.Forexample,   whensomeoneissendinganemail,theemailmessageentersthroughtheApplication   ProtocolsLayer,whichcorrespondstospecificprogramssuchasbrowsersforusingthe   WorldWideWebandemail.ThemessagethenenterstheTransmissionControlProtocol  ( TCP),whichdirectscertaininformationtoaspecificapplicationorprogramona  computerusingaport.FromtheTCPlayeroftheprotocolstack,themessagethenmoves  intotheInternetProtocolLayer,whichdirectsthemessagetoaspecificcomputerusingan  IPaddress.ThefinalstepintheprocesspriortoenteringtheInternetisfortheHardware  Layertoconvertthemessagefrombinarydatatonetworksignals.    ThemessageisthentransmittedviaanInternetServiceProvider( ISP)which  examinestheIPaddressofthemessageandroutestheinformationtothecomputerwiththe   properIPaddress.Whenthemessagereachesitsintendedrecipient,thereceivingcomputer " reversestheTCP/IPprotocolstackandthemessageisdecoded. $     ConstitutionalConsiderationsinPersonalJurisdiction   ,  Becausewehaveconsistentlyheldthatthereachofthelongarmstatuteiscoextensive  withthelimitsofpersonaljurisdictiondelineatedunderthedueprocessclauseoftheFederal  Constitution,ourstatutoryinquirymergeswithourconstitutionalexamination.See   Mohamedv.Michael,279Md.at656,370A.2dat553;_Carefirst_,334F.3dat39697.A   courtsexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantsatisfiesdueprocess   requirementsifthedefendanthas minimumcontactswiththeforum,sothattorequirethe   defendanttodefenditsinterestsintheforumstate doesnotoffendtraditionalnotionsoffair  playandsubstantialjustice._Intl_ԀShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310,316,66_S.Ct_.154,  158,90_L.Ed_.95,102(1945).     GeneralPersonalJurisdiction     Thestandardfordeterminingtheexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionoveranonresident  defendantdependsuponwhetherthedefendantscontactswiththeforumstatealsoprovide  the_basis_Ԁforthesuit.IfthedefendantscontactswiththeStatearenotthebasisforthesuit,  thenjurisdictionoverthedefendantmustarisefromthedefendantsgeneral,morepersistent   contactswiththeState. Toestablishgeneraljurisdiction,thedefendantsactivitiesinthe " Statemusthavebeencontinuousandsystematic._Carefirst_,334F.3dat397,quotingALS $  Scan,Inc.v.DigitalServ.Consultants,Inc.,293F.3d707,712(4thCir.2002),cert.denied, &"" 537U.S.1105,123_S.Ct_.868,154_L.Ed_.2d773(2003);see_Helicopteros_Ԁ_Nacionales_Ԁde ($$ Columbia,S.A.v.Hall,466U.S.408,414&n.9,104_S.Ct_.1868,1872&n.9,80_L.Ed_.2d *&& 404,411&n.9(1984).BSIhasallegedbothgeneralandspecificpersonaljurisdictionover  RealtimeGamingand_KDMS_.    WithrespecttoMarylandsabilitytoexercisegeneralpersonaljurisdictionover  RealtimeGamingand_KDMS_,BSIallegesthatRealtimeGamingswebsiteis highly   interactiveandpermitsthecorporationtosolicitbusinessinMaryland,entercontracts,   conductsales,andaccrueprofits.Moreover,BSIassertsthatthefactthatthesitelinksto   other_websites_Ԁthathavelinkstodownload_KDMS_sgamingsoftware,whichmaybeinuse   inMaryland,createslinesofcommunicationwithpeopleinMarylandandsourcesof  substantialrevenue.    Thefirstcaseexplicatingamodelframeworkforexploringwhether_websites_Ԁonthe  Internetcanbeusedasabasisforconferringpersonaljurisdictiononthecourtsis_Zippo_  ManufacturingCo.v._Zippo_ԀDotCom,Inc.,952_F.Supp_.1119(W.D.Pa.1997).SeeToys   RUs,Inc.v.StepTwoS.A.,318F.3d446,452(3dCir.2003)(statingthat_Zippo_ has  becomeaseminalauthorityregardingpersonaljurisdictionbasedupontheoperationofan  Internetwebsite);_Carefirst_,334F.3dat399(notingthat_Zippo_ firstenunciatedthatcourts   influentialslidingscalemodelforapplyingpersonaljurisdictionrequirementstoelectronic " commerce);_Sublett_Ԁv._Wallin_,94P.3d845,851(N.M.2004)(observingthattheslidingscale $  ofinteractivitywasfirstarticulatedin_Zippo_).In_Zippo_,anactionarisingoutofatrademark &"" violationallegedby_Zippo_ԀManufacturingCo.,whichproduceslighters,against_Zippo_ԀDot ($$ Com,Inc.,anonlinenewsservice,thecourtsuggestedtheuseofa slidingscaleof *&& personaljurisdictionthatis directlyproportionatetothenatureandqualityofcommercial  activitythatanentityconductsovertheInternet._Zippo_,952_F.Supp_.at1124.The_Zippo_  courtdescribeditasa spectrumwhich:  8  8`   [_a]t_Ԁoneend...aresituationswhereadefendantclearlydoes   businessovertheInternet.Ifthedefendantentersintocontracts   withresidentsofaforeignjurisdictionthatinvolvetheknowing   andrepeatedtransmissionofcomputerfilesovertheInternet,   personaljurisdictionisproper.E.g.,CompuServe,Inc.v.   Patterson,89F.3d1257(6thCir.1996).Attheoppositeendare   situationswhereadefendanthassimplyposedinformationonan   InternetWebsitewhichisaccessibletousersinforeign   jurisdictions.ApassiveWebsitethatdoeslittlemorethanmake  informationavailabletothosewhoareinterestedinitisnot  groundsfortheexerciseofpersonaljurisdiction.E.g.,_Bensusan_  RestaurantCorp.v.King,937_F.Supp_.295(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1996).  Themiddlegroundisoccupiedbyinteractive_Websites_Ԁwherea  usercanexchangeinformationwiththehostcomputer.Inthese  cases,theexerciseofjurisdictionisdeterminedbyexamining  thelevelofinteractivityandcommercialnatureoftheexchange  ofinformationthatoccursontheWebsite.E.g.,_Maritz_,Inc.v.  _Cybergold_,Inc.,947_F.Supp_.1328(E.D.Mo.1996).` x` x _Zippo_,952_F.Supp_.at1124.    In_Maritz_,Inc.v._Cybergold_,Inc.,947_F.Supp_.1328(E.D.Mo.1996),thedefendant   hostedawebsiteasapromotionforthelaunchofitsInternetservice.Althoughtheservice " wasnotoperational,visitorstothesitewereencouragedtoaddtheiraddresstoamailinglist $  toreceiveitsupdatesabouttheservice.Id.at1330.Theplaintiffbroughtsuittorecoverfor &"" copyrightinfringementbaseduponthewebsites_availabilty_ԀtoconsumersinMissouri.In ($$ rejectingthedefendantscontentionthatitoperateda passivewebsite,thecourtreasoned *&& thatthedefendantsconductamountedto activesolicitationsand promotionalactivities  designedto developamailinglistofInternetusersandthatthedefendant indiscriminately  respondedtoeveryuserwhoaccessedthesite.Id.at133334.    Attheoppositeendofthespectrum,thecourtin_Bensusan_ԀRestaurantCorp.v.King,   937F.Supp.295(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1996),concludedthatthewebsiteatissueinthatcasedidnot   enablethecourttoexercisepersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendant.TheInternetwebsite   inissuecontainedgeneralinformationaboutthedefendantsclub,acalendarofevents,and   ticketinformation.Id.at297.Thesitewasnotinteractive,andifauserwantedtogotothe  club,shewouldhavetocallorvisitaticketoutletandthenpickupticketsattheclubonthe  nightoftheshow.Id.    BSIcontendsthatithasestablishedaprimafaciecaseforgeneraljurisdictionbased  uponthe_Zippo_slidingscaleofinteractivityof_websites_.Intheproceedingsbeforethetrial  court,BSIallegedthatRealtimeGamingand_KDMS_swebsiteishighlyinteractivewithout  furtherfactualsupportillustratingitsinteractivityoritsusebyresidentsofMaryland.In  lightofthedearthofevidencetothecontrary,wefindthatthetrialcourtsdeterminationthat   RealtimeGamingand_KDMS_swebsiteisnot highlyinteractiveisnotclearlyerroneous. " Moreover,the_Zippo_scaleisnotparticularlywellsuitedforuseinthegeneralpersonal $  jurisdictioninquiry_X #  16      _Ԁbecause evenrepeatedcontactswithforumresidentsbyaforeign &"" defendantmaynotconstitutetherequisitesubstantial,continuousandsystematiccontacts  requiredforafindingofgeneraljurisdiction._Revell_Ԁv._Lidov_,317F.3d467,471(5thCir.  2002);seealsoBancroft&Masters,Inc.v.Augusta_Natl_ԀInc.,223F.3d1082,1086(9thCir.  2000)( [_E]ngaging_Ԁincommercewithresidentsoftheforumstateisnotinandofitselfthe   kindofactivitythatapproximatesphysicalpresencewithinthestatesborders).     Irrespectiveoftheslidingscaledelineatedin_Zippo_,thequestionofgeneral   jurisdictionisnotdifficulttoresolve.Thoughthemaintenanceofawebsiteis,conceivably,   acontinuouspresenceeverywhere,theexistenceofawebsitealoneisnotsufficientto  establishgeneraljurisdictioninMarylandoverRealtimeGamingand_KDMS_.BSIprovided  thetrialcourtwithnoevidencebeyondRealtimeGamingand_KDMS_swebsite,toestablish  substantial,continuous,systematiccontactswithMaryland.Therefore,weconcludethatthe  trialcourtproperlydeterminedthatitlackedgeneraljurisdictionoverRealtimeGamingand  _KDMS_.     SpecificPersonalJurisdiction     Ifthedefendantscontactswiththeforumstateformthe_basis_Ԁforthesuit,however,   theymayestablish specificjurisdiction._Carefirst_,334F.3dat397.Indetermining " whetherspecificjurisdictionexists,weconsider(1)theextenttowhichthedefendanthas $  purposefullyavaileditselfoftheprivilegeofconductingactivitiesintheState;(2)whether &!" theplaintiffsclaimsariseoutofthoseactivitiesdirectedattheState;and(3)whetherthe (#$ exerciseofpersonaljurisdictionwouldbeconstitutionallyreasonable._Carefirst_,334F.3d *%& iOY i i  _at397;ALSScan,293F.3dat71112;seeHelicopteros,466U.S.at414&n.8,104S.Ct.At  1872&n.8,80L.Ed.2dat411&n.8.    BSIassertsthatithasestablishedaprimafaciecaseforspecificjurisdictionover  RealtimeGamingandKDMSbecauseithasallegedthatRealtimeGamingandKDMSown   orcontrolwindowscasino.com,thecompanythatassistedThomindesigningthewebsitefor   theGoldenRhinoCasinoandtheunsolicitedcommercialemailsthatBSIreceived.In   supportofthisassertion,BSInotesthatwindowscasino.comhasalinkthatleadstoanIP   addressthatisregisteredtoRealtimeGamingandKDMSandthattheemailsatissue  containedalinkwhichultimatelyledtothesameIPaddress.    Specifically,BSImustmakeaprimafacieshowingthatanagencyorcontractual  relationshipexistsbetweenRealtimeGamingandKDMSandwindowscasino.com.SeeMd.  Code(1973,2002Repl.Vol.),6103oftheCourtsandJudicialProceedingsArticle.An  agencyrelationship isalegalconceptwhichdependsupontheexistenceofrequiredfactual  elements:themanifestationbytheprincipalthattheagentshallactforhim,theagents  acceptanceoftheundertakingandtheunderstandingofthepartiesthattheprincipalistobe   incontroloftheundertaking.Restatement(Second)ofAgency1,cmt.(1958);see " InsuranceCompanyofNorthAmericav.Miller,362Md.361,373,765A.2d587,593 $  (2001);Greenv.H&RBlock,Inc.,355Md.488,503,735A.2d1039,1047(1999). &"" Althoughsucharelationshipisnotnecessarilycontractualinnature,itisalwaysconsensual. ($$ InsuranceCo.OfN.Amer.,362Md.at373,765A.2dat593,citingLohmullerBldg.Co.v. *&& Gamble,160Md.534,539,154A.41,43(1931).Theultimatequestionisoneofintent,of  boththeprincipalandtheagent.Id.;HowardCleanersv.Perman,227Md.291,295,176  A.2d235,237(1961).Wehaverecognizedthreefactorsashavingparticularrelevanceto  thedeterminationofanagencyrelationship.Thesefactorsare:   8  8`   (1)Theagentspowertoalterthelegalrelationsoftheprincipal; ` x` x 8  8`   (2)Theagentsdutytoactprimarilyforthebenefitofthe   principal;and ` x` x 8  8`   (3)Theprincipalsrighttocontroltheagent. ` x` x Green,355Md.at503,735A.2dat1048,citingUnitedCapitolIns.v.Kapiloff,155F.3d   488,498(4thCir.1998);Proctorv.Holden,75Md.App.1,20,540A.2d133,142,cert.  deniedsubnom.,313Md.506,545A.2d1343(1988);Schearv,MotelManagementCorp.,  61Md.App.670,687,487A.2d1240,1248(1985)(statingthefactorsderivefromsections  1214oftheRestatement);Restatement(Second)ofAgency1214(1958).Thethree  factorsareevaluatedwithinthetotalityofthecircumstances.Green,355Md.at506,735  A.2dat1049.Thepresenceofallthreefactorsisnotrequiredforafindingofanagency  relationship.Id.    TheonlyevidenceofanykindofrelationshipbetweenRealtimeGamingandKDMS ! andwindowscasino.comisthefactthatthewindowscasino.comwebsitecontainsalinkto # anIPaddressregisteredtoKDMSwherecustomerscandownloadthegamingsoftware.This %!! doesnotestablishorevenindicatearelationship,principalagentorcontractual,between '## RealtimeGamingandKDMS,ontheonehand,andwindowscasino.comontheotherin )%% whichwindowscasino.comisempoweredtoactonRealtimeGamingandKDMSsbehalf +'' orwhetherRealtimeGamingandKDMScontrolwindowscasino.com.BSIdoesnotprovide  anyevidenceofmutualcorporateofficers,boardmembers,owners,orothersuchcontrolling  individualsorentitiestoshowanythingmorethanthatwindowscasino.comhasobtaineda  sublicensefromMontanaOverseas.Amerelinkwithnomorecompellingevidenceis   insufficienttocreatethenecessarynexusbetweenRealtimeGamingandKDMS,and   windowscasino.comandThom.V #  17      ׀     BecauseBSIhasfailedtoprovideanyevidenceofarelationshipamongRealtime   Gaming,KDMS,windowscasino.com,andThom,thatiseithergovernedbyacontractor  possessesthosequalitiescharacteristicofagencyrelationships,wefailtoseeanysubstantive  contactwithMarylandorconnectionwiththeconductgivingrisetothissuit,andassuch  findthatitwouldnotbeconstitutionallyreasonabletoexercisepersonaljurisdictionover  RealtimeGamingandKDMSonthesefacts.     TheDenialofDiscovery   5  BSIclaimsthatthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretioninrulingonthemotiontodismiss  attheMay26,2004hearingandindenyingitsrequestfordiscovery.Wereviewthedenial   ofdiscoveryundertheabuseofdiscretionstandardandwillonlyconcludethatthetrialcourt " abuseditsdiscretion wherenoreasonablepersonwouldtaketheviewadoptedbythe[trial] $  court[]...orwhenthecourtactswithoutreferencetoanyguidingprinciples,andthe  rulingunderconsiderationisclearlyagainstthelogicandeffectoffactsandinferences  beforethecourt[]...orwhentherulingisviolativeoffactandlogic.Wilsonv.Crane,  __Md.__,__,__A.2d__,__(February10,2005),quotingInreAdoption/GuardianshipNo.   3598,347Md.295,31213,701A.2d110,11819(1997)(citationsomitted).Wedonot   findthatthetrialcourtsdecisioninthepresentcaseisbeyondthedecisionthatareasonable   personwouldmakeinlightofthefactthatBSIwasunabletoproduceanyevidenceofa   connectionbetweenRealtimeGamingandKDMS,ontheonehand,andwindowscasino.com  andThom,ontheother,beyondalinkleadingtoanIPaddressatwhichindividualscould  downloadthesoftwaredesignedbyKDMS.    StrikingtheAmendedComplaint       OnJune2,2004,thetrialcourtissuedanorderdismissingBSIscomplaintthatwas  silentastowhetherthecomplaintwasdismissedwithorwithoutprejudice.BSIarguesthat  thetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninstrikingtheamendedcomplaintthatitfiledandcites  anumberofthisCourtscasesforthepropositionthatadismissaliswithoutprejudiceunless   otherwisespecifiedintheorderofdismissal.See,e.g.,Williamsv.Snyder,221Md.262,157 " A.2d265(1960);Stateexrel.Lennonv.Strazzella,331Md.270,627A.2d1055(1993). $  BSIalsonotesthatMarylandRule2341(c)providesthat [a]mendmentsshallbefreely &!" allowedwhenjusticesopermits.Despitethepreferenceforfreelypermittedamendments, (#$ BSIfailedtointroduceanynewfactstocureitsinabilitytoproduceprimafacieevidenceof *%& MarylandspersonaljurisdictionoverRealtimeGamingandKDMS.Therefore,wefindthat  thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingthemotionforreconsiderationand  strikingBSIsAmendedComplaint.    Conclusion        Becausewefindthatthetrialcourtproperlyconcluded,basedontheevidence   introduced,thatBSIfailedtoestablishaprimafaciecaseforgeneralorspecificpersonal   jurisdictionoverRealtimeGamingandKDMS,weaffirmthetrialcourtsorderdismissing   thecomplaint.Moreover,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin   denyingBSIdiscoveryordenyingthemotionforreconsiderationandstrikingtheamended  complaint.  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(# JUDGMENTOFTHECIRCUITCOURT  FORMONTGOMERYCOUNTY  AFFIRMED.COSTSTOBEPAIDBYTHE  PETITIONER. (#(#  +&' pP! p s p  OjAIntheCircuitCourtforMontgomeryCounty  CivilNo.248508    h       INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS   OFMARYLAND   No.119   SeptemberTerm,2004   AYl) xdEhA  BEYONDSYSTEMS,INC.  v.  REALTIMEGAMINGHOLDING  COMPANY,LLC,ETAL.  ^AYl) xdEhA  0  Bell,C.J.(#(# 0  Raker(#(# 0  Wilner(#(# 0  Cathell(#(# 0  Harrell (#(#   Battaglia !   Greene, "  @8JJ. $ " AYl) xdE&hA &"$    p     DissentingopinionbyRaker,J., '-#& whichBell,C.J.,andHarrell,J.,join. (-$' WAYl) xdE*hA *-&)    p Filed:June22,2005 +<'+   ,<(, jA" j f !8XXdXXd8k j    mkRaker,J.,dissenting,inwhichBell,C.J.,andHarrell,J.,join:    IwouldreversethejudgmentoftheCircuitCourtbecausethecourtabusedits  discretionindenyingpetitionerBSIsrequestforfurtherdiscoveryastojurisdictionalfacts.  TheCircuitCourtgrantedrespondentsKDMSandRealtimesmotiontodismissthe   complaintonthegroundsthatrespondentswerenotsubjecttothepersonaljurisdictionofthe   courtandthatpetitionerwasnotentitledtodiscoveryontheissue.Themajorityholdsthat   theCircuitCourtactedwithinitsdiscretiontodenydiscovery inlightofthefactthatBSI   wasunabletoproduceanyevidenceofaconnectionbetweenRealtimeGamingandKDMS,  ontheonehand,andwindowscasino.comandThom,ontheother,beyondalinkleadingto  anIPaddressatwhichindividualscoulddownloadthesoftwaredesignedbyKDMS.Maj.  Op.at30(emphasisinoriginal).Idisagree.    Iagreethatbasedontherecordbeforethecourt,evidenceofMarylandcontactswas  insufficienttosubjectrespondentsKDMSandRealtimetopersonaljurisdictioninMaryland.  DiscoveryinthiscasewastocloseonSeptember27,2004,withdiscoveryrequeststoend  byAugust27,2004.OnMay26,2004,theCircuitCourtissuedanordergranting   respondentsmotiontodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdictionanddenyingpetitioners " discoveryrequestsastothejurisdictionissue.Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration $  onJune11,2004.OnJuly27,2004,whilethemotionforreconsiderationwaspending, &"" petitionersentinterrogatoriesanddocumentrequeststorespondents,seekingdiscovery ($$  relatedtopersonaljurisdiction.TheCircuitCourtdeniedpetitionersmotionfor *&& reconsiderationonSeptember21,2004.Inmyview,thecourtabuseditsdiscretionin  denyingpetitionerdiscoveryontheissueofpersonaljurisdiction.     Thegeneralruleisthatacourtshouldnotdismissaclaimforlackofpersonal  jurisdictionwithoutpermittingtheplaintifftoobtaindiscoveryastojurisdictionalfacts.In   Androutsosv.FairfaxHospital,323Md.634,594A.2d574(1991),theCircuitCourthad   dismissedanegligenceactionforlackofpersonaljurisdictionwithoutpermittingthe   plaintiffstoobtaindiscoveryastothedefendantscontactswithMaryland.Infindingthat   thecourthadabuseditsdiscretion,westatedasfollows:  8  8`    [O]urdiscoveryrules,whicharebroadandcomprehensivein  scope,haveastheirprincipalobjectivetherequireddisclosure  ofallrelevantfactssurroundingthelitigationbeforethecourt.  InBaltimoreTransitCo.v.Mezzanotti[227Md.8,13-14,174  A.2d768,771(1961)],wereasoned:` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` xIfallofthepartieshaveknowledgeofallofthe  relevant,pertinentandnon-privilegedfacts,orthe  knowledgeoftheexistenceorwhereaboutsof  suchfacts,thepartiesshouldbeableproperlyto  preparetheirclaimsanddefenses,thereby  advancingthesoundandexpeditious  administrationofjustice.Inordertoaccomplish   theabovepurposes,thediscoveryrulesaretobe ! liberallyconstrued.Andthetrialjudges,whoare " primarilycalledupontoadministersaidrules,are # vestedwithareasonable,sounddiscretionin $  applyingthem,whichdiscretionwillnotbe %!! disturbedintheabsenceofashowingofits &"" abuse.'##   8  8`   Nowhereisthatrationalemoreapplicablethanwhena )%%  fact-specificissue,suchaswhetherthecourtcanexercise *&& personaljurisdictionoveranon-residentdefendant,is  presented.N ` x` x  Androutsos,323Md.at638,594A.2dat576(citationsomitted).    Althoughtheplaintiffinacivilactionbearsresponsibilityforestablishingthe   defendantsamenabilitytosuit,includingpersonaljurisdiction,acomplaintisrequiredto   contain onlysuchstatementsoffactasmaybenecessarytoshowthepleadersentitlement   torelief.Md.Rule2303(b).Indeed,itisthedefendantwhomustraisequestionsof   personaljurisdictionatthepleadingstage;underMarylandRule2322(a)anydefenseto   personaljurisdictioniswaivedifnotraisedbeforefilingananswertothecomplaint.See  Hansfordv.DistrictofColumbia,329Md.112,120,617A.2d1057,1060(1993).Thus,a  plaintiffbearsnoaffirmativedutytopleadpersonaljurisdictioninacomplaint,anditis  inappropriateordinarilytograntamotiontodismissbasedsolelyonthepleadingsandto  denydiscoveryontheissueofamenabilitytosuit.See,e.g.,Edmondv.UnitedStatesPostal  Serv.Gen.Counsel,953F.2d1398,1401(D.C.Cir.1992)(Ginsberg,J.,concurring);  CompagniedesBauxitesdeGuineev.LUnionAtlantiqueS.A.DAssurances,723F.2d357,  362(3rdCir.1983);LeascoDataProcessingEquip.Corp.v.Maxwell,468F.2d1326,1343 ! (2dCir.1972);Surpitskiv.HughesKeenanCorp.,362F.2d254,25556(1stCir.1966); # HartHoldingCo.Inc.v.DrexelBurnhamLambert,Inc.,593A.2d535,538(Del.Ch.1991); %!!  Petersonv.SpartanIndus.,Inc.,310N.E.2d513,516(N.Y.1974). '##   InEdmond,then-CircuitJudgeRuthBaderGinsburgnotedtheimportanceof  affordingaplaintiff ampleopportunitytotakediscoveryrelevanttopersonaljurisdiction  beforedismissingaclaimagainstadefendant:   8  8`    TherulingonpersonaljurisdictionoverPopkinwaspremature   intheabsenceofanydiscovery;inkeepingwithNaartex   [ConsultingCorp.v.Watt,722F.2d779(D.C.Cir.1983),cert.   deniedsubnom.NaartexConsultingCorp.v.Clark,467U.S.   1210,104S.Ct.2399,81L.Ed.2d355(1984)],thatruling   shouldhaveabidedafairopportunityforplaintiffstopursue   discoverykeyedtotheissueofpersonaljurisdiction. ` x` x Edmond,953F.2d1398at1401.    InSurpitksi,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFirstCircuitnotedasfollows:  8  8`    Aplaintiffwhoisatotalstrangertoacorporationshouldnot  berequired,unlesshehasbeenundiligent,totrysuchanissue  onaffidavitswithoutthebenefitoffulldiscovery....The  condemnationofplaintiffsproposedfurtheractivitiesasa  fishingexpeditionwasunwarranted.Whenthefishis  identified,andthequestioniswhetheritisinthepond,weknow  noreasontodenyaplaintiffthecustomarylicense.U` x` x Surpitski,362F.2dat25556.    TheDelawareCourtofChanceryaddressedthisissueinHartHoldingCo.andstated   asfollows: " 8  8`    Asaplaintiffdoeshaveanevidentiaryburden,shemaynotbe $  precludedfromattemptingtoprovethatadefendantissubject %!! tothejurisdictionofthecourt,andmaynotordinarilybe &"" precludedfromreasonablediscoveryinaidofmountingsuch '## proof.Surpitskiv.Hughes-KeenanCorp.,362F.2d254,255 ($$ (1stCir.1966);see5AWrightandMiller1351n.33.Only )%% wherethefactsallegedinthecomplaintmakeanyclaimof *&& personaljurisdictionoverdefendantfrivolous,mightthetrial +'' court,intheexerciseofitsdiscretionarycontroloverthe  discoveryprocess,precludereasonablediscoveryinaidof  establishingpersonaljurisdiction.InsuranceCorp.ofIreland,  Ltd.v.CompagniedesBauxitesdeGuinee,456U.S.694,708,  102S.Ct.2099,2107,72L.Ed.2d492(1982).InCompagnie  desBauxitesdeGuineev.LUnionAtlantiqueS.A.   DAssurances,723F.2d357(3dCir.1983),theCourtof   AppealsfortheThirdCircuitstatedthegeneralrule: ` x` x Ѐ8  8`   8 ` x` xWheretheplaintiffsclaimisnotclearly   frivolous,thedistrictcourtshouldordinarily   allowdiscoveryonjurisdictioninordertoaidthe   plaintiffindischargingthatburden.    8  8`   723F.2dat362. ` x` x 8  8`    Itisrelativelyrarebutnotunheardofthatacourtwill  requireaplaintifftoattempttomakeoutitsprimafaciefactual  showingofdefendantsamenabilitytosuitwithoutthebenefit  ofdiscovery.See,e.g.,Wyattv.Kaplan,686F.2d276(5thCir.  1982);DavalSteelProductsv.M.V.JurajDalmatinac,718F.  Supp.159(S.D.N.Y.1989);Singerv.Bell,585F.Supp.300  (S.D.N.Y.1984);GroveValve&RegulatorCo.,Inc.v.Iranian  OilServices,Ltd.,87F.R.D.93(S.D.N.Y.1980).Whileineach  ofthesecasesthecourtconsideredmattersoutsideofthe  pleading,ineachinstancethecourtfoundthatplaintiffs  assertionofpersonaljurisdictionlackedthatminimallevelof  plausibilityneededtopermitdiscoverytogoforward.No  purposeishereservedbydetailingthefactspresentedinthose  cases;questionsofthiskindareinherentlyhighlyparticular.   Butitisnotablethat,inWyattv.Kaplan,inapprovingthe ! grantingofamotiontodismissunderRule12(b)(2)wherethe " plaintiffhadbeendeniedanopportunitytotakedepositions,the # FifthCircuitCourtofAppealsstronglyendorsedthepractice $  thatordinarilypermitsdiscoveryonsuchamotion:%!!` x` x Ѐ8  8`   8 ` x` xWhenadefendantchallengespersonal '## jurisdiction,courtsgenerallypermitdepositions ($$ confinedtotheissuesraisedinthemotionto )%% dismiss....Inappropriatecaseswewillnot *&& hesitatetoreverseadismissalforlackofpersonal +'' jurisdiction,onthegroundthatplaintiffwas  improperlydenieddiscovery....   !    8  8`   Wyattv.Kaplan,686F.2dat283.` x` x HartHoldingCo.,593A.2dat53940.   % n   Thiscaseisnotonewhichfallsintothecategoryof clearlyfrivolous.Theelusive   natureofInternetpresence,togetherwiththestrongincentivesfor spammerstoconceal   theiridentities,portendsthatoftentherewillbeadearthofjurisdictionalfactsinfuturecases   broughtundertheCommercialElectronicMailstatute.TheGeneralAssemblyhascreated   aprivatecauseofactiontoaidMarylandresidentsintheescalatingbattleagainstunsolicited,  deceptivecommercialemail.Theeffectivenessofthattoolwillbediminishedifweclose  thecourthousedoortoplaintiffswithoutprovidingthemthemeanstouncoverfactsthat  wouldsupportpersonaljurisdiction.    Theemailsatissueinthiscasewerecomposedbyanentitynamed  windowscasino.com,andsentintoMarylandbythatentitythroughits affiliate,Travis  Thom.Idisagreewiththemajoritysconclusionthat BSIwasunabletoproduceany  evidenceofaconnectionbetweenRealtimeGamingandKDMS,ontheonehand,and ! windowscasino.comandThom,ontheother,beyondalinkleadingtoanIPaddressatwhich # individualscoulddownloadthesoftwaredesignedbyKDMS. %!!   BSIestablishedthreefactscastingdoubtonrespondentscontentionthat '## windowscasino.comis,atmost,asublicenseeofKDMSsoftwareandhasnoagency )%% relationshipwithrespondents.First,thehyperlink http://wincasinoclicks.com/ +'' SmartDownload.asp?affid=13462permittedMarylandrecipientsoftheemailtodownload  KDMSdesignedsoftware.Second,thedomainname wincasinoclicks.comcorresponds  toanIPaddressregisteredtoKDMSandRealtime.Thus,anemailrecipientwhoclicked  onthehyperlinkwouldbedownloadingKDMSsoftwarefromaserverbelongingtoKDMS.   Third,BSIsexpert,PaulA.Wagner,statedinhisaffidavitthatthe ?affid=13462"portion   ofthehyperlinkmostlikelyservedtoidentifytheaffiliate(inthiscaseTravisThom)who   recruitedthegambler.Assumingthisuncontrovertedallegationtobetrue,aKDMSowned   serverwascollectinginformationthatcouldhavebeenusedtodetermineTravisThoms  compensation.    Therelationshipbetweenrespondentsandwindowscasino.comisshroudedinthe  mistsofholdingcompanies,offshoreentities,andmultilevellicensingarrangements.  Accordingtorespondents,KDMShasenteredintoanexclusivelicensewithamaster  licensee(PanamabasedMontanaOverseas).MontanaOverseas,inturn,sublicensesthe  softwaretomanyclientcasinos,amongthemwindowscasino.com(seeminglyatradename  ofeitherAngeldelaMaana,aCostaRicancorporation,orADLM,Ltd.,locatedinthe   ChannelIslandofJersey).RespondentsassertthatKDMSandRealtimehavenodirect " relationshipwiththeirsublicensees,andexercisenocontroloverthemannerinwhichthe $  sublicenseesadvertisetheirservices.UnderBSIstheory,ontheotherhand,thelicensing &""  andsublicensingagreementsareshams,MontanaOverseas,AngeldelaMaana,and ($$ O) e   ADLMaremeredummycorporations,andwindowscasino.comisatradenameoralterego e ofKDMS/Realtime. e    WhiletherelationshipsmaybeexactlyasKDMSandRealtimeclaim,thethreefacts e detailedaboveprovidesomecredencetoBSIstheory.AKDMSownedserverisproviding e  KDMSdevelopedsoftwaredirectlytoendusers.Thisserverscollectionofaffiliate e  identificationnumberssuggeststhatKDMSandRealtimemayhavesomeroleinthe e  administrationofwindowscasino.comsaffiliatecommissionsystem. e    ThesefactsalonedonotestablishanagencyrelationshipbetweenKDMS/Realtime e andwindowscasino.com,buttheydorenderBSIsrequestfordiscoverysomethingmorethan e a fishingexpedition.BSIisentitledtomoreinformationregardingtheconnectionsamong e thevariousentities.WhoownsMontanaOverseas,AngeldelaMaana,andADLM?Do e thesecompanieshaveanyassetsoremployees?Whoisactingasthe housewhena e gamblerbetsatwindowscasino.com?Dothepurportedlicensingagreementsbetween e KDMS/Realtime,MontanaOverseas,andAngeldelaMaanaorADLMactuallyexist,and e ifso,whatdotheycontain?Isthesoftwarelicensedforaflatfee,ordoKDMSandRealtime e  receiveanadditionalpaymentforeachdownload?Whataspectsofwindowscasino.coms e" business,ifany,arerundirectlybyKDMSandRealtime?DoKDMSandRealtimewrite e$  advertisingcopyforwindowscasino.comanditsaffiliates? e&""   AnswerstotheabovequestionsmightestablishthatKDMSandRealtimemerely e($$ developsoftware,providesomeincidentalhostingservices,andcaninnowaybedeemed e*&& tohavepurposefully sentTravisThomsemailsintoMaryland.Buttheymightalso e establishthattheadvertisementandthestrategyforemailingitinbulkwerethedirect e creationsofKDMSandRealtime,hidingbehindmultiplelayersofdummycorporationsand e shamlicenseesinanattempttodisguisetheiroperationofa spamdependentbusiness. e    Irespectfullydissent. e    ChiefJudgeBellandJudgeHarrellhaveauthorizedmetostatethattheyjoininthis e  dissentingopinion. e  j1